Software testing is among the most critical parts of the software development process. The creation of tests plays a substantial role in the evaluation of software quality yet being one of the most expensive tasks in software development. This process typically involves intensive manual efforts and it is one of the most labor-intensive steps during software testing. To reduce manual efforts, automated test generation has been proposed as a method of creating tests more efficiently. In recent decades, several approaches and tools have been proposed in the scientific literature to automate the test generation. Yet, how these automated approaches and tools compare to or complement manually written is still an open research question that has been tackled by some software researchers in different experiments. In the light of the potential benefits of automated test generation in practice, its long history, and the apparent lack of summative evidence supporting its use, the present study aimed to systematically review the current body of peer-reviewed publications on the comparison between automated test generation and manual test design. We conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis for collecting data from studies comparing manually written tests with automatically generated ones in terms of test efficiency and effectiveness metrics as they are reported. We used a set of primary studies to collect the necessary evidence for analyzing the gathered experimental data. The overall results of the literature review suggest that automated test generation outperforms manual testing in terms of testing time, test coverage, and the number of tests generated and executed. Nevertheless, manually written tests achieve a higher mutation score and they prove to be highly effective in terms of fault detection. Moreover, manual tests are more readable compared to the automatically generated tests and can detect more special test scenarios that the ones created by human subjects. Our results suggest that just a few studies report specific statistics (e.g., effect sizes) that can be used in a proper meta-analysis. The results of this subset of studies suggest rather different results than the ones obtained from our literature review, with manual tests being better in terms of mutation score, branch coverage, and the number of tests executed. The results of this meta-analysis are inconclusive due to the lack of sufficient statistical data and power that can be used for a meta-analysis in this comparison. More primary studies are needed to bring more evidence on the advantages and disadvantages of using automated test generation over manual testing.